An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options

Home , American black bear, Bear, Bear hunting, Deer hunting, Fisher (animal), Trapping

_An Evaluation of Black Bear _Management Options

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee, August 2012 An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements______3 Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee______3

Introduction______4 Brief History of Bear Management in the Northeast______5 The Changing Landscape of Bear Management & Human-Bear Conflicts______7 Biological Carrying Capacity vs Cultural Carrying Capacity Black Bear Management Strategies...... 8 Population Management Human-Bear Problem Management

Black Bear Population Management______9 Regulated Hunting & Trapping______10 Control Non-Hunting Mortality...... 12 Habitat Management...... 14 Fertility Control...... 16 Allow Nature to Take Its Course...... 18

Human Bear Conflict Management______20 Public Education...... 21 Exclusion Devices for Food & Waste Management...... 23 Aversion Conditioning...... 25 Repellents...... 27 Kill Permits...... 28 Capture & Kill...... 30 Translocation...... 31 Damage Compensation Programs or Reimbursement Fund...... 33 Supplemental Feeding...... 35

Conclusions ______37 Literature Cited______38

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options Acknowledgements

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options was co-edited by The Northeast Black Bear Jeremy E. Hurst, with the New York State Department of Environ- Technical Committee mental Conservation, Christopher W. Ryan and Colin P. Carpenter is a group of professional bear with the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, and Jaime L. biologists from northeastern Sajecki with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisher- United States and eastern Ca- ies. Regional contributions and technical review were provided by nadian provinces committed to agency biologists who serve as members of the Northeast Black the study and wise management Bear Technical Committee, National Park Service biologists, Wild- of our black bear resources. life Conservation Society and additional black bear biologists in the southeastern United States. Booklet layout and formatting were provided by staff from the Bureau of Information and Education of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Significant portions of this document were drawn from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries’ Black Bear Management Plan (VDGIF 2002), the Penn- sylvania Game Commission’s Black Bear Management Plan (PGC 2005), and additional state and provincial black bear management plans provided by representative members of the Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee. This document was prompted, reviewed and approved by the Northeast Wildlife Administrators Association.

A contribution of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 3 Introduction Introduction Archaeological excavations and historical records indicate that Native Americans and early European settlers had a strong connection to the black bear. Bear meat was used as a source of protein, hides were fashioned into garments and blankets, fat was used to fuel lanterns and as a waterproofing agent, and bones and claws were made into tools and decorations. Today, black bears are used for many of the same purposes and are prized as a trophy animal for hunters and trappers alike. In addition, black bears provide a unique wildlife viewing experience and add a touch of wildness to the habitats in which they occur. Black bears are the most common and widespread of the three bear species in North America. Although their historical distribution was larger, today black bears are found in at least 40 states and all Canadian provinces. In the eastern United States, black bear range is continuous throughout New England and the Appalachian Mountains but is fragmented throughout the southeast and along the eastern seaboard. The incredibly adaptable nature of black bears enables them to occupy a greater range of habitats than any other bear species. This ability coupled with recent increases in black bear numbers and humans moving into black bear habitat have led to increased human-bear conflicts. In addition, black bears are drawn in to human occupied areas by easily acquired food sources. As both bear and human populations expand, there is increased concern for public safety and property damage and need for management agencies to employ a variety of bear management options. The objective of this booklet is to explain the rationale behind bear management decisions and to discuss the utility of various management options. Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) photo

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 4 Introduction

Brief History of Bear Management in the Northeast

Throughout much of northeast- Passage of the Federal Aid in featured protection from unregu- ern North America, management Wildlife Restoration Act (better lated hunting. Today, efforts are of black bears has followed a known as the Pittman-Robertson directed toward maintenance of similar trend. Following the Act) in 1937 marked the begin- bear populations at levels in- near extirpation of bears due to ning of modern-day wildlife tended to: (1) ensure sustainable extensive cutting of forests, mar- management in the United bear populations now and in the ket hunting and bounties, many States. This act earmarked future; (2) provide hunting and states and provinces enacted income from an existing excise viewing opportunities of bears laws that regulated the taking of tax on sporting arms and am- for licensed hunters, wildlife bear in the 1900s. Bears were munition for use in wildlife photographers and wildlife view- listed as game species in some management, restoration, re- ers; and (3) minimize conflicts jurisdictions and were fully pro- search, and land acquisition. between bears and people. tected in others. Early bear management efforts

Chemically immobilized bear.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 5 Introduction

Through the combined benefits harvest through regulated hunt- equally to all, regulated by law of regulated hunting, public ing remains the most effective or rule-making with public land purchases, forest matura- tool for managing bear popula- involvement rather than market tion, bear restoration efforts, and tions throughout the region. pressures, wealth, social status management-based research, or land ownership. Management bear populations have grown These cultural, social, and man- policy and decisions are rooted and expanded their range across agement values of hunting are in science and support an ethic eastern and northeastern North reinforced in the North American of fair-chase and legitimate use America. Black bears now occur Model of Wildlife Conserva- (e.g., fur and food) of harvested in nearly every northeastern state tion (Geist et al. 2001), a se- wildlife. Adherence to these and province in North America. ries of principles that underpin tenets has allowed game man- black bear management in the agement to function successfully Black bear hunting is a long- northeast and throughout North while retaining strong support standing tradition for many America. At the heart of the among the generally non-hunting families in the northeast, provid- model is the concept of wildlife public. For this reason, black ing a valuable source of food, a as a public resource, owned by bear management programs means of shared recreation and no one but held in trust by the throughout the northeast are an opportunity to pass-on family government for the benefit of based upon the principles of the traditions and appreciation for the people. Further, access to North American Model of Wild- nature. Additionally, black bear wildlife by hunters is provided life Conservation.

Animal Rights and Black Bear Management

Trends in wildlife-related recreation and public attitudes toward wildlife use have implications for black bear management. Non hunting wildlife recreation (e.g., wildlife viewing) has increased significantly over the last several decades (Duda et al. 1998), and advocates of animal rights and animal welfare have begun to exert more influence on wildlife management decisions (Muth et al. 2002). Proponents of animal welfare believe that human use of animals is appropriate as long as practical measures are taken to ensure that human use does not cause undue pain and suffering to animals. Professional wildlife biologists, hunters and trappers are supporters of animal welfare (Organ et al. 1996). However, animal rights proponents advocate equal moral and legal rights for all species with a motive to end any human use of animals (Cockrell 1999, Muth and Jamison 2000).

In several northeastern states and provinces, activism by animal rights proponents has in some cases compromised bear managers’ ability to control black bear populations by limiting bear hunting opportunities (e.g., periodic cancellation of bear seasons) or specific harvest techniques (e.g., restrictions on bear trapping or the use of dogs to hunt bears). Yet the dependence on and use of renewable natural resources such as black bears, fosters stewardship of those resources.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 6 Introduction

The Changing Landscape of Bear Management and Human-Bear Conflicts

As bear populations have in- feeding birds and other wildlife, served to attract the bear. Modi- creased throughout northeastern cooking food outdoors, feed- fications to human behavior are North America and begun to ing domestic animals in outdoor critically important in resolving reoccupy more of their former locations and improperly storing human-bear conflicts, but vari- range, human settlement pat- trash set the stage for conflicts ous options and techniques for terns have also shifted away between humans and bears. managing bears are also appli- from urban centers into more cable. rural settings. Conflicts between Each year, state and provincial humans and bears have become wildlife agencies allocate sub- common in many areas and stantial staff and fiscal resources epidemic in others. As people go to reduce human-bear conflicts about their daily lives, they often that impose financial burdens to unknowingly create potential many communities. Most hu- food sources that attract bears man-bear conflicts can be allevi- into close proximity with people. ated or resolved by removing or Common activities, such as adequately protecting whatever

Determining Appropriate Black Bear Populations

Decisions about the appropriate distribution and abundance of bears are of primary importance to bear managers. These decisions are influenced by the suitability of a particular landscape for bears and the public’s desire for and tolerance of bears.

The concept of biological carrying capacity (BCC) suggests that maximum bear abundance is limited by the availability of habitat resources such as food, water, shelter (e.g., den sites) and space. As bear populations approach BCC, increasing bear social pressures may influence population dynamics and population growth may be limited by later ages of first reproduction, longer intervals between litters, smaller litter sizes, decreased cub and yearling survival rates, and greater social conflict.

Conversely, cultural carrying capacity (CCC) is the maximum number of bears humans will tolerate in a certain area. The types of interactions people have with bears, positive and negative, influence CCC. Typically, in areas where bear and human populations overlap, the upper limit of CCC falls well below BCC. Thus, black bear management often centers on CCC, and populations are managed by accounting for differences in stakeholder views, beliefs, and tolerances regarding human bear interactions.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 7 Introduction

Black Bear Management Strategies

requirements. Options that ad- Black bear managers frequently Population Management dress population management employ a variety of bear man- Population objectives for black of black bears and human-bear agement options to address bears generally are designed to problems are of primary inter- diverse stakeholder interests and increase, decrease or stabilize est. A thorough understanding of achieve desired bear population population levels in a given the implications of the various levels. These strategies include area. These specific popula- bear management options will be options that address black bear tion objectives can be achieved important to the success of bear population levels, human-bear through a variety of appropri- management programs. problem resolution, recreational ate management strategies. opportunities, and ecosystem Several management strategies also affect the rate of population growth (e.g., increase or decrease), influencing the time required to reach desired population levels.

Human-Bear Conflict Management Human-bear conflicts are greatly influenced by natural food abundance and human behaviors associated with food and waste management, though bear abundance may also influence the frequency of human-bear conflicts. In addition to general population management for bears, other management options can more specifically target human-bear conflicts.

Snyder County, PA bear harvest, PGC photo

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 8 Black Bear Population Management Black Bear Population Management

Bear harvest locations, PGC photo

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 9 Black Bear Population Management

Regulated Hunting and Trapping

As early as 1910, regulated are slow to recover. Thus, black for protecting bear populations hunting and trapping have been bear hunting seasons should be because it has enlisted a clientele used to manage wildlife popula- conservative, unless population interested in the continued abun- tions and foster the wise use of reduction is the objective (Miller dance of the resource (Garshelis wildlife resources for food, fur, 1990). Bear populations will 2002). and other utilitarian purposes. grow when the number of juve- Specific population levels can nile bears that reach adulthood Adjusting the hunting season be achieved by adjusting season (i.e. recruitment) exceeds the structure to coincide with bear length, season timing and legal number of bears that die (hunt- damage periods or to enhance methods of take to manipulate ing and non-hunting mortality) hunter effort may provide greater the number of animals and sex that year. Populations are stabi- opportunities to remove problem and age composition of the har- lized when deaths equal annual bears from the population. The vest. Specifically, wildlife man- recruitment. establishment of a September agers collect information from black bear hunting season in hunting harvest (hunting effort, Black bear populations can Wisconsin increased the harvest success rates, age/sex structure, withstand regulated hunting on of black bears that were causing etc.) to determine if we are meet- an annual basis (CA FED 2000, damage and decreased the aver- ing black bear population objec- Williamson 2002, PGC 2005) age number of nuisance black tives (e.g. stabilize growth) and and historically, managed hunt- bears destroyed per year using in turn modify hunting regula- ing has been an effective system kill permits from 110 to 19 (Hy- tions as necessary to meet management goals. Regional Example Black bear hunting is the ma- Maine Regulated Hunting & Trapping jor factor controlling most bear populations (Obbard and Howe In Maine, black bears are an important game species that is 2008). Depending on harvest lev- both hunted and trapped. The Maine Department of Inland els, black bear populations can Fisheries and Wildlife monitors and regulates bear hunting in increase, decrease or remain the Maine by adjusting bag limits, season dates, and legal meth- same in the presence of hunting. ods of harvest. Between 1985 and 1989, Maine’s black bear A recent survey of 23 states with population declined from 21,000 to 18,000 bears. This de- black bear hunting indicated that crease was attributed to increased interest in bear hunting, 57% had increasing populations where annual harvests increased from 1,500 to 2,500 bears. and the remaining states had In response to declining bear numbers, the Department stable populations (Kocka et al. shortened the bait, hound, trapping and still-hunt seasons for 2001). black bears in 1990. The bear population slowly increased. By 1994, there were nearly 21,000 bears in Maine. Through Black bear populations may de- the 1990s, Maine’s bear population continued to increase crease with heavy hunting pres- slowly despite increased interest in bear hunting and was at- sure. Because female bears pro- tributed to improved habitat conditions for black bears. duce only a few cubs every other year, depleted bear populations

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 10 Black Bear Population Management gnstrom and Hauge 1989). Similarly, a season extension in Pennsyl- Implications for Population vania to allow concurrent bear and deer hunting seasons resulted in Management: increased harvest rates of nuisance bears (Ternent 2008). Regulated black bear hunting and trapping are compatible Regulated harvest of black bear populations is occasionally a contro- with increasing, decreasing, versial social issue. Perhaps the most contentious issues involve fair or stable population manage- chase and the ethics of certain methods of harvest, especially trap- ment objectives. Wildlife ping of bears, hunting bears over bait, hunting with dogs, or hunting managers have the potential in the spring. Possible physical effects on black bears from hunting to effectively control black and the expense of regulating various hunting methods also have bear population levels through been questioned by critics of black bear hunting (Beck et al. 1994, the manipulation of season Loker and Decker 1995). Additionally, regulated hunting with cer- structure and length. Increas- tain methods may not be socially acceptable or feasible near urban ing bear populations can be areas. achieved through conservative hunting seasons designed Regulated hunting provides economic benefits in the form of hunt- to protect certain segments ing-related expenditures (food, lodging, equipment and transporta- of the black bear population tion) and may have a significant economic impact in rural communi- (e.g., mature females). Stable ties. However, economic benefits of regulated black bear hunting are or decreasing bear populations not limited to hunting expenditures. A complete economic evaluation can be achieved through more of bear hunting should also include added damage costs (e.g., in- liberal hunting seasons that of- creased agricultural losses, increased vehicle collisions) that would fer reduced protection for adult be incurred with growing bear populations in the absence of hunting. females. Additionally, by purchasing licenses to hunt bears, hunters pay to provide a public service (i.e., bear population control), thereby reducing the tax burden and generating revenue that supports wildlife Implications for Human- conservation and management. Bear Conflict Management: Regulated bear harvest may Lycoming County, PA bear camp, PGC photo reduce human-bear conflicts by controlling population levels. Some potential also exists for targeting nuisance black bears by adjusting timing and length of hunting seasons, bag limits and legal methods of harvest (e.g. implementing seasons coinciding with high levels of agriculture damage).

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 11 Black Bear Population Management

Control Non-Hunting Mortality

In black bear populations, non- to cross highways, increasing mitigation for bisecting wild- hunting mortality is highest bear vulnerability. Bear-vehicle life habitats with roads. Black among young bears and includes collisions and habitat fragmenta- bears use highway underpasses vehicle collisions, poaching, tion by high-volume roadways where convenient (Foster and predation, starvation, drowning are important considerations in Humphrey 1995, Clevenger (i.e. flooding of dens) and dis- areas with threatened, endan- and Waltho 2000), but annual ease (Higgins 1997, Ryan 1997). gered or geographically isolated fluctuations in food availability, The most promising approach to bear populations. weather patterns and bear be- control non-hunting mortality of havior may influence the evalu- black bears would be to reduce Wildlife passes (above or be- ation of bear movements and human-induced mortality (i.e., neath a roadway) are designed underpass utilization (Donaldson vehicle collisions, poaching). to facilitate safe passage across 2005). While underpasses may roadways and are often used as benefit some wildlife species, no Bear-vehicle collisions can be a significant source of black bear mortality. Highways may also impact bears indirectly by altering bear movements and increasing human-bear interactions. Roads appear to offer no barrier to bear movement and habitat use (Carr and Pelton 1984, Van Manen et al. 2012), but bears cross roads less as vehicle traffic increases (Brody and Pelton 1989). However, food availability may cause bears to use areas adjacent to roads or cause bears

Wildlife crossing structures under construction in Ontario. The highway was realigned/ twinned and this overpass (above) is the first of its kind in Canada east of the Rockies, 2011. The 5m X 5m underpass (left) is intended to be a joint wildlife/forest access structure. Photos by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 12 Black Bear Population Management

Regional Example Florida Control Non-Hunting Mortality Crossing structures developed specifically for black bears are uncommon. In several northeastern states and provinces, crossing structures have been used to reduce vehicle collisions with moose, elk, or deer primarily, but black bears are also known to use these structures.

However, in Florida, black bear populations are isolated, numbers are low, and new roads are being constructed at alarming rates. As a result, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Com- mission and Florida Department of Transportation have designed a wildlife underpass, posted signs to alert motorists of bear crossing areas, and reduced speed limits to reduce bear-vehicle collisions. In addition to black bears, bobcats, gray foxes, white-tailed deer and other wildlife have used the underpass.

conclusive evidence is available to suggest that highway fencing or Implications for Population underpasses reduce the non-hunting mortality of black bears. Long- Management: term (10-15 year) studies are necessary to answer complex ecologi- In general, controlling non- cal questions regarding roads and long-lived wildlife species, such as hunting mortality may increase black bears. bear numbers in small isolated populations. Adequate assessments of the impact of poaching on black bear populations are difficult to obtain. The motives for poaching can vary from taking for personal use to taking for commercial purposes Implications for Human- (Williamson 2002). Activities of poachers are secretive, complicat- Bear Conflict Management: ing quantification of their effects. Black bear populations throughout Except for potentially prevent- most of their range are stable or increasing suggesting that poaching a few bear-vehicle colli- ing is not having serious negative impacts on established black sions, controlling non-hunting bear populations. However, poaching losses may impact population mortality does not reduce growth rates in areas of low bear densities. human-bear conflicts at the site of the problem The costs associated with controlling non-hunting mortality can be great. The cost of a box culvert underpass in Florida was estimated to be $870,000 (Land and Lotz 1996), the cost of a bridge extension was $433,000 (Macdonald and Smith 1999), and the cost of a wildlife overpass in Alberta, Canada was estimated to be $1.15 million (Forman et al. 2003). Increased levels of law enforcement to control poaching are also costly. Unless black bear populations are small, isolated, and significantly impacted by non-hunting mortality, the cost of controlling non-hunting mortality may be prohibitive.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 13 Black Bear Population Management

Habitat Management

Black bears are adapted to use potential for improving, main- and Tansey 1995). However, a wide variety of habitat types. taining, and establishing black human activities such as urban- Habitat type diversity is impor- bear habitat. ization, intensive agriculture and tant for satisfying black bear construction of high traffic vol- habitat requirements. Managed Habitat quality, through its influ- ume roads can affect corridors forests that provide young and ence on food abundance, affects and linkages among populations. older forest likely provide better reproduction and survival of As human populations grow, cor- black bear habitat than unman- cubs. Poor nutrition can delay ridor protection and/or develop- aged forests. Forest manage- the onset of the breeding season, ment may become necessary to ment that provides sustained and increase the age of sexual ma- ensure the long-term persistence abundant food supply throughout turity and lengthen the normal of bears. As human population the year (e.g., hard mast, soft 2-year interval between litters. In growth and development con- mast, herbaceous foods and years of limited fall food avail- tinue, landscape planning will be invertebrates), denning sites ability, females may produce needed to reduce the impacts of and escape cover benefits black fewer cubs and cub survival these factors on bear habitat. bears. Because hard mast is an decreases. important fall food source for Although habitat has important bears, management strategies Habitat fragmentation and consequences for black bears, should encourage the sustained subsequent isolation of black the ability to effectively manage availability of mature, hard mast bear populations is a concern for habitat is limited. Management producing trees (oak, hickory, small bear populations. Cor- of public lands has been hin- beech, etc.). Integration of tim- ridors connecting isolated black dered by increased public resis- ber cuttings, prescribed burning bear populations have been rec- tance to timber harvesting, in- and management of woodland ommended to ensure the long- creased environmental regulation openings affords the greatest term persistence of bears (Rudis and decreased budgets (Weaver

Regional Example Vermont Habitat Management Hard mast production, especially beech, is considered by wildlife officials to be a key component to black bear survival in Vermont due to the absence of alternative hard mast species throughout most of the state. The largest and most densely stocked beech stands are found in the Green Mountain range and the northeastern most part of Vermont. Loss of these critical feeding areas and indirect impacts due to human developments such as ski resort expansion (trails, golf courses, condos, etc.), second home development, and wind farm construction force bears to travel further from their home ranges in search of food and increases the levels of bear nuisance activity. Vermont’s land use statute, Act 250, gives the State authority to regulate development that threatens this critical habitat. Beginning in the early 1980s the Fish and Wildlife Department has recommended permit conditions on high elevation residential, resort, and wind farm developments that have led to the permanent protection of thousands of acres of black bear travel corridors and bear-scarred beech stands.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 14 Black Bear Population Management

2000). Prescribed burning also meets resistance due to traditional Implications for Population public views about fire suppression. Further, wildlife managers do Management: not have a direct control on private and corporate land management. Habitat management activities that promote forest diversity, Costs associated with habitat management for black bears depend abundant food resources, den upon the management activities conducted. Most timber cutting sites, protective cover and cor- practices produce revenue for the landowner. However, prescribed ridors serve to increase black burning, maintenance of woodland openings and activities designed bear population levels. Re- to alleviate site-specific human-bear conflicts may generate addi- storing these desirable habitat tional landowner costs. components requires long-term

planning as these habitat fea- PGC photo tures may take several decades to develop. Habitat management activities that reduce forest diversity and productivity and isolate black bear populations serve to decrease bear population levels. Unlike habitat enhancement efforts that may take decades to develop, immediate impacts will be apparent with habitat changes such as deforestation, intensive agriculture and urbanization.

Implications for Human- Bear Conflict Management: Maintenance of diverse, productive black bear habitat provides a variety of natural food sources that can serve to reduce human-bear conflicts. Additionally, removing protective cover or locating commodities or property away from protective cover may reduce site-specific human-bear conflicts.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 15 Black Bear Population Management

Fertility Control

Fertility control involves the use Health Canada has approved any technology that might lead to of chemical contraception (e.g. chemical fertility control on an fertility control as a population steroids, estrogens, and proges- experimental basis for any wild control option for bears. tin) that is injected into a seg- population of bears. ment of the population. Federal In most situations, fertility authority to regulate fertility The concept of immunocontra- control agents may only slow control agents on wildlife is ception (vaccines that stimulate population growth or stabilize handled by the Environmental the body’s immune system to the population at current levels Protection Agency (EPA) in the stop production of antibodies, (Garrott 1991). In reality, it is United States and Health Canada hormones, or proteins essential doubtful the cost or efficiency of in Canada. Neither EPA nor for reproduction) is a recent delivery for contraceptive tech-

Regional Example New Jersey Fertility Control The New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW) is responsible for managing black bears to assure their continued survival, while addressing the property damage and safety concerns of NJ residents and farmers. The NJ black bear population has been growing and its range expanding, leading to an increasing number of conflicts with humans. Although NJDFW biologists have determined that the bear population can support a regulated hunting season, state officials are investigating the development of non-lethal management methodologies, recog- nizing that alternative methods of controlling wildlife populations may be necessary because traditional means, such as recreational hunting and trapping, may not always be appropriate or effective in certain environments.

Based on reports that PZP was successful in limiting cub production in captive black bears at Bear Country USA, South Dakota and that the FDA approved Neutersol® as a permanent steril- ant for male puppies in 2003 allowing extra-label use of Neutersol in any nonfood animal, the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), parent agency of NJDFW, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Humane Society of the United States to investigate the feasibility of fertility control to control NJ’s black bear population. An immunocontraception pilot project on six captive female black bears at Six Flags Wild Safari was initiated in 2003 despite concerns, including cost, side effects, lack of efficacy and production problems with Neutersol. This project was discontinued after Neutersol was found to cause tumors in the treated male bears.

In 2006, NJDEP’s Division of Science and Research commissioned a literature review of fertility control. The authors of “An Analysis of the Feasibility of Using Fertility Control to Manage New Jersey Black Bear Populations” concluded that managing black bear populations using fertility control is unlikely to be a feasible means to manage bear populations (Fraker et al. 2006).

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 16 Black Bear Population Management

Implications for Population Management: At the present time, fertility control is not a viable option to manage free ranging black bear populations.

Implications for Human- Bear Conflict Management: Should fertility control techniques be developed for bears, changes in bear density would only occur over a long time frame during which human- bear conflicts would continue. Fertility control is not considered to be a viable option to manage human-bear conflicts.

PGC photo niques would allow their use on Although long lived species a viable option for black bear free-ranging game populations are least suited for population population management until outside of urban areas (Fager- reduction through use of fertil- the efficacy, health impacts, stone et al. 2002). From a popu- ity control, most fertility control behavioral changes, method of lation perspective, removing research and applications have administration and costs are sci- animals to directly reduce popu- been directed at the manage- entifically evaluated. However, lation levels is the most effective ment of white-tailed deer and fertility control is unlikely to be means of controlling population wild horse populations, both a feasible means to manage bear size (Garrott 1995). While use long lived species (Fagerstone populations due to the inherent of fertility control agents may et al. 2002). Because research expense in capturing bears, low limit population growth, it does on the use and effectiveness of population densities, and expan- not reduce the current population fertility control agents on black sive movements (Fraker et al. size, which is usually the major bears is insufficient, fertility 2006). objective of population control. control should not be considered

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 17 Black Bear Population Management

Allow Nature to Take Its Course

If bear populations were to black bear populations exceeds In the absence of control mea- persist in the absence of human Cultural Carrying Capacity sures, bear population growth intervention, populations would (CCC), the number of black rates will be elevated. increase until reaching Biologi- bears the public will tolerate. cal Carrying Capacity (BCC). Humans have had a dramatic The point at which black bear Allowing nature to self-regulate effect on the ecosystems of populations achieve BCC is not black bear populations is gener- North America. Among many known throughout much of the ally best suited for areas with perturbations, humans have northeastern United States or low-density black bear and hu- altered landscapes, changed and Canada but would vary region- man populations where the inci- manipulated plant communi- ally with habitat quality and food dence of human-bear conflicts is ties, displaced large predators, availability. It is highly probable limited or areas where increased eliminated native species, and that in most locations BCC for bear population levels is desired. introduced numerous exotic spe-

Regional Example West Virginia Allow Nature to Take Its Course In the Cranberry Black Bear Sanctuary in West Virginia, and in other areas that prohibit hunting, there was no active management program to control black bear populations. Conse- quently, on many of these lands, bear management was not focused on population control and managers allowed nature to take its course with respect to bear population growth rates and demographic parameters. Rather, the primary focus was on reducing the impacts of visitors on local bear populations. To accomplish this goal, agency personnel attempted to educate visitors and eliminate the intentional or unintentional feeding of bears. In addition, agency personnel were trained to aversively condition or relocate bears that caused problems with visitors to the sanctuary. However, because many bears lost their fear of people or became accustomed to human food sources, repeat offenders were ultimately killed. Moreover, because bear populations have become so high in West Virginia and other eastern jurisdictions, there was not an area to relocate animals that did not already have a population meeting or overshooting population goals. In many of these areas protected from hunting, bear population growth is relatively high, and visitors often note that observing a black bear in its natural habitat is a highlight of their experience. However, areas surrounding these refugia can experience unusually high levels of human-bear conflicts through increased crop and residential damage and bear-vehicle collisions. The presence of large refugia where bear population growth is not actively managed is a challenge to state and provincial wildlife biologists who seek to mitigate the impact these bears have on surrounding landscapes and communities. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources opened the Cranberry Black Bear Sanctuary to hunting in 2007 and has begun to regulate the population through hunting seasons. This, coupled with the installation of bear proof garbage cans, has reduced the nuisance complaints and allowed the agency to effectively control the bear population.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 18 Black Bear Population Management

Four cub litters are common in bear refugia that prohibit hunting, VDGIF cies. Natural systems and their regulatory processes have changed as Implications for Population a result of these effects. Neither intensive management, nor adopting Management: a “hands off” policy will restore North American ecosystems to their Allowing nature to take its original state. course increases population levels until BCC is ap- Costs associated with allowing nature to take its course vary with proached. black bear population density. For low-density black bear populations, the cost of implementation is probably limited. However, as black bear populations grow and exceed CCC, costs associated with Implications for Human- the increased loss of agricultural crops, damage to private property, Bear Conflict Management: vehicle collisions, and managing nuisance complaints may be sub- Allowing nature to take its stantial. course may have site-specific impacts on human-bear conflicts. Generally as populations increase, human-bear problems also will increase.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 19 Human Bear Conflict Management Human-Bear Conflict Management

Black bear showing aggression, PGC photo

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 20 Human Bear Conflict Management

Public Education

Public education about black ing bear populations and reduc- bear conflicts, are now living in bears is an essential component ing human-bear conflicts are also bear country. The importance of of all successful black bear man- important. public education and distribution agement programs and provides of information about bears is an important proactive measure People tend to view bears as continuous and growing. to prevent human-bear conflicts intelligent, culturally signifi- from developing or progress- cant, charismatic and similar to Educational programs may in- ing. Educational efforts should humans (Kellert 1994). This at- crease public awareness of bears, provide an understanding of titude may contribute to human- but the critical challenge is to bear natural history and feed- bear conflicts because people initiate behavioral and attitude ing ecology, the process of food are tempted to encourage (or not changes in people that result in conditioning and human habitu- discourage) bear viewing op- reduced potential for human-bear ation, the importance of remov- portunities around their homes. conflicts. For such programs to ing attractants and techniques They may feed bears or make no be successful, educational efforts for waste storage and disposal. effort to keep bears from ac- must be persistent, multi-faceted Agencies should emphasize that cessing garbage and other foods and address individuals, com- responsible management, not until significant property dam- munities, institutions and orga- passive preservation, is neces- age occurs. Furthermore, the nizations (Gore and Knuth 2006, sary when managing natural number of people moving into Beckmann et al. 2008). Effective resources like bears, or protect- bear habitats is growing, and in campaigns often involve partner- ing property and human health some cases, bear populations are ships of local, state and fed- and safety (USDA WS WI 2002). expanding into new areas. The eral agencies with conservation Guidance on how to interpret result is that many people, with groups and universities. bear behavior, react in an en- relatively little previous experi- counter and the role of lethal and ence or knowledge about bears non-lethal measures for manag- and methods to prevent human-

Regional Example Ontario Public Education The Bear Wise Program in Ontario, Canada, works in partnership with communities to educate people about bears and establish local prevention programs to reduce bear attractants. To successfully manage community conflicts with bears, a commitment from the state and provincial agencies, municipal governments, waste management companies, home and business owners and visitors is necessary. The critical ingredients include providing education, removing bear attractants, enforcing laws and using innovative bear management techniques. Changing people’s beliefs and behaviors is challenging, therefore the motivation to change and the mes- sage on the need to change has to be compelling.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 21 Human Bear Conflict Management

Implications for Population Management: Education is essential for developing a public awareness of the need for managing bear populations and the importance of regulated hunting as a management tool.

Implications for Human- Bear Conflict Management: Because bears exploiting human-related food resources are responsible for most human- bear conflicts, public education is essential to resolving current and preventing future conflicts. Often public education and other measures (i.e. fencing, aversive conditioning) are needed to resolve human- bear conflicts. Public education is the cornerstone of conflict management efforts.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 22 Human Bear Conflict Management

Exclusion Devices for Food and Waste Management

Exclusion devices are physical related food through access conflicts usually recommend barriers that prevent access of to intentional or unintentional eliminating the bears’ access to bears to human property, food or feeding and may lead to habitu- human-related food sources. commodities. Exclusion devices, ation (loss of fear) to humans. including electric fencing and Food conditioned and habituated Fencing, bear-resistant contain- bear-resistant containers, can bears are typically responsible ers, and garbage incinerators eliminate individual, site-specific for increased human-bear con- have been used to address broad- bear conflicts. flicts. Eliminating bear access scale solid waste management to human-related foods in areas associated with industrial devel- Bears are very adaptable and will of high human use (e.g., parks, opment in northern Alaska (Foll- modify their behavior to take full campgrounds) helps reduce mann 1989). On smaller scales, advantage of their environment. human-bear conflicts. In such ar- electric fencing is extremely Often, this trait can lead to bears eas, management plans and strat- effective in eliminating bear becoming conditioned to human- egies for mitigating human-bear access to garbage, food stores

Bear resistant food canister, NYSDEC.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 23 Human Bear Conflict Management

Regional Example New York Exclusion Devices for Food & Waste Management For many years the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) have worked together to resolve bear conflicts in the backcountry of the Adirondack Park. In 2005, a regulation mandated the use of bear resistant canisters in one highly used area of the Park. The combination of education, enforcement of the regulation and providing proper food storage options to backpackers resulted in a dramatic drop in bear encounters and human-bear conflicts. and agricultural crops, and preventing beehive destruction in apiar- costs associated with managing ies (Creel 2007). Incidences of bears obtaining human-related food human-bear conflicts, reducing in Denali National Park, Alaska decreased 96% when hikers were property damage and decreasing provided with bear-resistant containers for food storage (Schirokauer work stoppages. and Boyd 1998). Human-bear conflicts also decreased in areas of Yosemite National Park, California where access for bears to human- related food sources was eliminated (Keay and Webb 1989). Implications for Population Major limitations to exclusion devices are cost and practicality. Management: Depending upon the type of electric fence constructed, the expense Exclusion devices are not an (ranging from $1.50 to $3.00 per foot of fencing) may be cost pro- effective tool for obtaining hibitive for large sites. Bear-resistant containers and portable electric bear population objectives; fences are cost effective for camping, backpacking, and other recre- however, exclusion devices ational activities in bear habitat. Bear resistant trash containers have may increase cultural carry- a wide range of costs depending on residential or commercial use. ing capacity by reducing some Residential containers can range from $50.00 - $250.00, while trash bear conflicts. enclosures or dumpsters can cost $400.00 and up. In addition to cost, “bear resistance” is variable, quality of bear proof exclusion devices varies between manufacturers and a limited number of cases have Implications for Human- occurred where bears have been able to break into poorly fabricated Bear Conflict Management: or damaged garbage enclosures. Fast learners, some bears have been Food and waste manage- able to figure out how to gain entry to certain food storage devices as ment is the primary reason for well. However, these occurrences are very rare and are accomplished many human-bear complaints. by a select number of bears. Exclusion devices for garbage and food Reducing the availability of storage prevent bears from accessing those attractants. human related food sources to black bears would eliminate Costs associated with broad-scale solid waste management can be many nuisance bear calls. highly variable depending upon the specific needs of each area. Exclusion devices secure food However, for development sites, adequate advanced planning de- and waste and are effective at signed to reduce bear access to trash can significantly reduce the reducing human-bear conflicts.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 24 Human Bear Conflict Management

Aversive Conditioning

Aversive conditioning is a tech- reduce intentional and uninten- (Kocka et al. 2001, McMul- nique designed to modify unde- tional feeding of bears. lin and Parkhurst 2008). Most sirable behavior of black bears respondents believed aversive and cause them to avoid specific Aversive conditioning tech- conditioning techniques are only places or objects (McMullin and niques include the use of pepper occasionally effective. Indeed, Parkhurst 2008). While aversive spray (Capsaicin), emetic com- use of non-lethal projectiles, py- conditioning has been used for pounds, loud noises, non-lethal rotechnics and pursuit dogs has many years, it is becoming an projectiles (e.g. rubber buckshot demonstrated only short-term increasingly important non-le- or slugs), pyrotechnics, chasing (<1-6 months) alteration of bear thal, short-term tool for wildlife with dogs or live trapping and behavior, particularly if access management agencies to address releasing bears at the capture to food sources are not managed human-bear conflicts. Yet aver- site. In practice, the effective- (Beckmann et al. 2004, Leigh sive conditioning should only be ness of aversive conditioning for and Chamberlain 2008). considered as part of an Integrat- reducing human-bear conflicts is ed Wildlife Damage Manage- mixed. Survey responses from The effectiveness of aver- ment (IWDM) approach (USDA bear managers across North sive conditioning at altering a WS WI 2002) for minimizing America indicated that there bear’s problem behavior may human-bear conflicts that also was no clear consensus about be affected by a bear’s previ- emphasizes public education to the effectiveness and use of ous experiences associated with understand bear behavior and aversive conditioning methods that behavior. It is unlikely that

Biologists prepare to aversively condition a trapped bear upon release. Aversive conditioning tools including pepper spray, rubber projectiles, and pyrotechnics.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 25 Human Bear Conflict Management

sufficient negative reinforcement could be directed at bears that have learned behaviors that lead to conflicts with humans (Mc- Cullough 1982). Even infrequent rewards serve to perpetuate such behavior. Thus, aversive conditioning is likely to be most successful for young bears and first-time offenders. Addition- ally, the effectiveness of aversive conditioning is likely impacted by the timing and proximity of treatment to the nuisance activity, intensity of the treatment and Maryland cooperators with bear-chasing hounds used to deter repeated application of treat- bears from returning to agricultural fields, MD DNR. ment.

While aversive conditioning is addressed. Effective aversive Implications for Population unlikely to provide long-term conditioning may be expensive Management: relief from human-bear conflicts, and impractical because trap- Aversive conditioning is not application of aversive condi- ping is often required before effective at managing bear tioning techniques may provide conditioning can occur. It also population size. immediate relief for agricultural requires specialized equipment, damage and provide public sat- professional training and time to isfaction that a problem is being implement. Implications for Human-

Bear Conflict Management: Aversive conditioning may Regional Example temporarily alter some spe- Maryland Aversive Conditioning cific black bear behaviors and yield a short-term reduction in In the images below, Maryland Department of Natural Re- human-bear conflicts. Howev- sources (MD DNR) biologists prepare to aversively condition er, aversive conditioning must a female bear that was captured in September 2003 after be accompanied or preceded attempting to gain entry to a freezer on an enclosed porch. by efforts to address the attrac- This female had been aversively conditioned one previous tant that instigated the problem time in September 2001 after entering an enclosed porch to behavior. gain access to trash. After the conditioning event in 2003, the female was not reported again until May 2004 when it returned to the same residence and attempted once again to gain entry. After this 3rd attempted entry to the enclosed porch, the bear was killed.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 26 Human Bear Conflict Management

Repellents

Repellents are sensory deterrents that are intended to keep bears Implications for Population from entering certain areas or prevent the close approach by bears. Management: Depending on the method of application, repellents may also func- The use of repellents is not tion as an aversive conditioning tool. Common repellents include an effective tool for obtaining chemical compounds, loud noises or guard animals. When sprayed bear population objectives; directly in a bear’s eyes, Capsaicin was effective at repelling cap- however, the use of repellents tive and free-ranging black bears (Herrero and Higgins 1998) but may increase cultural carry- only at distances less than 30 feet (Hygnstrom 1994). However, ing capacity by reducing some objects or sites sprayed with Capsaicin may not repel black bears bear conflicts. but rather attract them to the object or site (Smith 1998). Thus, Capsaicin is applicable only in situations of close human-bear contact and probably doesn’t have broad application for reducing Implications for Human- most forms of human-bear conflicts. Bear Conflict Management: Repellents have shown Certain chemical compounds, such as human urine or ammo- minimal success at reducing nia, have had mixed results in deterring bears (Creel 2007). Any human-bear conflicts. Most potential effect of the compounds is likely to decrease over time are economical and readily as the compound degrades or bears become accustomed to the available and may provide a odor. However, ammonia is useful to reduce odors associated with cost-effective means of reduc- garbage storage in some situations. Karelian bear dogs and sheep ing damage for site specific dogs have proven effective in keeping bears from frequenting human-bear conflicts. areas guarded by these animals (Jorgensen et al. 1978, Green and Woodruff 1989). The use of chemical compounds or guard animals is likely ineffective in urban situations where bears are used to people. Regional Example Maryland Repellents As a non-lethal form of control, repellents appear to be socially Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR), Wild- acceptable and are relatively life & Heritage Service staff frequently responds to human- inexpensive. Capsaicin is sold bear conflicts. The primary method of mitigating conflicts at commercially and often recom- residences, businesses, and campgrounds is to identify and mended for individuals hiking remove the attractants, though deterrents are also occasion- in bear habitat. Ammonia is also ally used. In agricultural settings such as crop fields (e.g. widely available but use of these corn and oats), however, removing the attractant or excluding compounds may be limited. Dogs them with fencing is often expensive and impractical. are used in certain situations In these situations, bear-chasing hounds are often used to with a limited degree of success, chase bears from the crop fields and deter them from return- based on the circumstances. ing. Corn fields are especially attractive to bears while the corn is in the milk stage. The use of bear-chasing hounds seems to be an especially effective mitigation tool when em- ployed frequently at this stage of the corn’s development.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 27 Human Bear Conflict Management

Kill Permits

Many states and provinces issue bears involved in human-bear 52% of survey respondents were permits that authorize landown- conflicts. Additionally, Horton opposed to the killing of bears ers experiencing bear-related and Craven (1997) suggested that repeatedly cause problems damage to kill the offending that kill permits might increase for people (Siemer and Decker bears. Kill permit programs are farmer tolerance for damage by 2003). Animal rights groups of- designed to alleviate human- giving them a sense of control ten support non-lethal means for wildlife conflicts, particularly over the damage situation. Kill managing wildlife. Additionally, damage to agricultural com- permit programs have some perceiving a loss in recreational modities. While kill permits are limitations. Kill permits may not opportunities, some hunters used to alleviate human-bear be practical for some urban areas object to bear removal from conflicts, wildlife agencies have where the discharge of firearms the population via kill permits. not used kill permits to manage may be prohibited. Further, the However, controversy surround- black bear population levels. Kill wide-ranging, nocturnal habits ing a kill permit program in Wis- permit programs for human-bear of black bears can complicate re- consin appeared to come from a conflicts generally do not occur moval efforts, requiring substan- vocal minority, and hunters and on a large enough scale to affect tial time investments to remove farmers accepted the use of kill black bear populations except at specific animals. permits for reducing crop dam- small, localized levels. age (Horton and Craven 1997). As a lethal control measure, kill Kill permits can effectively permit programs may not be so- target and remove specific black cially acceptable. In New York,

Bear damage to a corn field in Virginia, VDGIF.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 28 Human Bear Conflict Management

Regional Example Virginia Kill Permits If a bear is damaging fruit trees, crops, livestock or personal property used for commercial agricultural production, the Code of Virginia authorizes the property owner to receive a kill permit if certain requirements are met. Once damage occurs and the owner contacts the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), a site visit is usually conducted by a Con- servation Police Officer in cooperation with a District Biologist. If there is clear and convincing evidence the damage has been caused by a bear, the damage has been reported in a timely manner and safety concerns allow for it, a kill permit is written for a specific number of animals for a limited amount of time. The bear (or bears) can only be killed within the area where the damage is occurring as designated on the kill permit, the kill must be reported to VDGIF and the carcass disposed of within 24 hours of being killed. Kill permits are most commonly written for damage to corn fields followed by fruit orchard damage, livestock depredation, and apiary destruction. Typically, kill permits are written for the minimum number of bears presumed to be causing the damage but have been written for up to 10 bears at a time and renewed in areas that are adjacent to bear refuges. Kill permits are for use in areas where electric fencing or other bear deterrent methods are cost prohibitive or logistically impractical.

Implications for Population Implications for Human- Management: Bear Conflict Management: Generally, population impacts Kill permits can effectively al- of kill permit programs are leviate human-bear conflicts by minimal. However, if exten- targeting the problem individu- sively used, kill permits could als. Kill permits are used as a stabilize or decrease black bear last resort in situations where population levels. Efficacy of substantial damage has oc- using kill permits, as a popu- curred or human life and safety lation management option, are threatened. would depend on the age, sex and number of animals removed.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 29 Human Bear Conflict Management

Capture and Kill

Capture and kill can effectively target and remove specific bears involved in human-bear conflicts, eliminating future problems with that individual. The destruction of bears is generally applied in situations where the black bear presents an immediate threat to human safety or has repeatedly been involved in human- bear conflicts. Use of non-lethal techniques (e.g., translocation, aversive conditioning, etc.) as al- ternatives to killing may provide a short-term solution.

In unhunted areas where infor- Residential property mation on bears may be lacking, capturing and killing bears could damage, VDGIF. provide additional opportunity to collect data and assist wildlife management agencies in monitoring population health and growth. Bears killed by gunshot could be consumed, while bears killed by chemical means are generally not safe for human consumption.

Capture and kill is expensive and labor intensive. Cost estimates Implications for Population for the capturing and killing of bears vary by locality and are likely Management: to be similar to that of capturing and moving bears. Time and labor The efficacy of capture and kill costs are nearly equal, with the cost of moving a bear to a new site to stabilize or decrease black replaced by the cost of removing and disposing of the killed bear. bear population levels would depend upon the number, sex and age of bears removed from Regional Example the population. Generally ap- Capture & Kill New York plied to remove specific problem individuals, with insignifi- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation cant population management staff use capture and kill as a means to eliminate bears that consequences. have exhibited behaviors that are clearly dangerous toward humans, domestic pets or livestock. From 2008-2010, 15 bears were trapped and killed in separate incidences of Implications for Human- home entry, livestock depredation, or serious, repeated prop- Bear Conflict Management: erty damage in the Catskill region of southeastern New York. Capture and kill can effectively The situations were resolved with the removal of the bears remove problem bears from causing damage. the population.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 30 Human Bear Conflict Management

Translocation

Translocation involves captur- a problem is being addressed. provide habitat conditions where ing and moving bears to a new However, identifying and select- bears cannot continue to exhibit area. Translocations may be used ing suitable release sites can problem behaviors. Wade (1987) to introduce bears into new or complicate translocation efforts. noted that human safety and previously occupied habitats, to For many areas, bears already damage to agricultural com- establish, reestablish or augment occupy the best release sites. Re- modities are common negative bear populations, or to remove leases of translocated bears need values associated with bears. nuisance animals from the cap- to be compatible with the popu- Social concerns surrounding ture location. Translocation has lation management objectives of these negative values must be been used to restore black bear the area. Release sites must con- addressed to ensure successful populations in areas where na- tain enough suitable habitats to implementation of a transloca- tive bear populations have been meet a bear’s life requirements. tion program. extirpated (Shull et al. 1994). Release sites would ideally be located away from highways to Translocation has numerous Translocations receive wide pub- reduce the likelihood of vehicle effects on black bears. The first lic acceptance as a wildlife dam- collisions. Additionally, for few months following translo- age control technique because bears involved in human-bear cation bears often travel more, they avoid the killing of bears conflicts, release sites should which can cause bears to be and provide satisfaction that struck by vehicles or shot by hunters, farmers or homeown- Regional Example ers (Massopust and Anderson Pennsylvania Translocation 1984, Stiver 1991, Comly 1993). However, mortality rates of In June of 2004, multiple complaints about black bears were black bears >2 years old did received from a neighborhood in Mifflin County, Pennsylva- not increase following trans- nia. Sighting descriptions suggested a young, likely dispers- location in Minnesota (Rogers ing, bear was the main culprit. Conservation Officers talked 1986). Translocation appears to with homeowners about the importance of securing birdfeed have some short-term effects on and garbage attractants, and compliance was generally reproduction. Comly (1993) and good. However, bear sightings continued, and officers de- Godfrey (1996) reported females cided to relocate the bear as a preventative measure against did not give birth to cubs the further habituation. An 80-pound yearling male was captured winter following translocation, in the backyard of a residence, fitted with ear tags, and re- but reproduced normally in sub- located to a remote region of the county. Sightings subsided sequent years. while officers reminded homeowners about their responsi- bility to avoid attracting additional bears. The bear has not A black bear’s age, reproduc- been handled since. Approximately 250 bears are relocated tive status and distance moved from nuisance situations annually in Pennsylvania; most from the capture location affects have no previous relocations. Relocation is typically consid- the success of translocation. It ered an alternative only after food attractants are removed is less likely that bears moved and sightings persist. Fifty-one percent of the nuisance bears > 40 miles would return to the relocated in Pennsylvania are juveniles of dispersal-age. capture location; translocation of subadult bears is more successful

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 31 Human Bear Conflict Management than movement of adult bears (Sauer and Free 1969, Alt et al. 1977, Implications for Population Rogers 1986, Shull et al. 1994). Management: Translocations may be used Despite these challenges, translocation has been effective at reduc- to introduce bears into new or ing nuisance activity (McArthur 1981, McLaughlin et al. 1981, Fies previously occupied habitats, to et al. 1987). In eastern North America, 24 of 28 states/provinces use establish, reestablish or augment translocation as one method to manage human-bear conflicts (War- bear populations. burton and Maddrey 1994). However, translocation fails to address the situation which led to the nuisance behavior, and translocated nuisance bears may cause problems while attempting to return home Implications for Human- or after returning (Massopust and Anderson 1984). Bear Conflict Management: Translocation may reduce local Translocation is labor intensive and expensive and costs vary by nuisance activity. However, state and location. Costs include administrative expenses, capture translocation does not ad- and handling equipment (i.e., traps, carrying cages and immobiliza- dress the behavior causing the tion equipment), purchase of specialized vehicles and various over- human-bear conflict or remove head expenses in addition to staff time. the root of the problem (normally human food sources) Release of a relocated black bear, PGC photo at the capture location. Thus, black bears need to be relocated to areas where they cannot exhibit the same problem behavior. Effective, long-term nuisance control would probably require continual translocation efforts and may not be cost effective.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 32 Human Bear Conflict Management

Damage Compensation Programs or Reimbursement Fund

Damage compensation pro- Other limitations of reimburse- The acceptability of dam- grams, also called reimbursement programs involve the age compensation programs is ment funds, are seldom used by assessment of damage, determi- unclear. Some private organiza- management agencies. While nation of the damage payment tions are willing to establish damage compensation programs and program equitability. Under compensation funds for damage may satisfy those receiving dam- Wisconsin’s Wildlife Damage caused by some species. How- age to property or agriculture, Compensation Program (1930 ever, farmers in the United States they are not a viable technique -1979), landowners were dissat- have preferred other nuisance for preventing damage. Aside isfied with damage assessments management options to dam- from the cost and identification and damage payments, while age compensation (Arthur 1981, of a permanent funding source, legislators and wildlife manage- McIvor and Conover 1994). they do not address the problem ment personnel were concerned Compensation programs may be causing the damage. Without about the equity of the program appropriate in areas where bear addressing the causal factors, (Hygnstrom and Hauge 1989). In populations are protected and le- damage is likely to persist; and Virginia, Engel (1963) reported thal means of damage abatement compensation programs may be that equity of damage compensa- is unacceptable. self-perpetuating. To avoid this tion payments hindered program problem, Jorgensen et al. (1978) implementation. Ideally, damage Costs associated with damage recommended that programs assessment and determination of compensation programs would allocate a portion of reimburse- payments would be standardized vary according to program ment monies for establishing and to ensure equitable distribution guidelines. Small-scale com- maintaining damage prevention of program funds. pensation programs that restrict measures.

Regional Example West Virginia Damage Compensation or Reimbursement The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) uses a reimbursement fund to help mitigate personal property destruction caused by black bears to private landowners. Hunters that pursue black bears are required to purchase a $10.00 “Bear Damage Stamp” that is put in a fund for redistribution to private landowners experiencing “real or personal property” damage. The fund was established in the 1970s, at a time when bear populations were low, and was intended to protect bears from being killed for damaging property. However in 2007, the WVDNR paid out $188,004 in bear damage. In addition, the WVDNR spent $116,624 investigating and processing bear damage complaints. With approximately 23,000 bear damage stamps sold each year, the WVDNR would quickly bankrupt the fund if they charged their costs for processing bear damage claims. The reimbursement fund, while good in principle, may not pay for itself in years of high bear damage.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 33 Human Bear Conflict Management

Implications for Population Management: Reimbursement funds are not an effective tool for obtaining bear population objectives; however, reimbursement funds may increase the cultural carrying capacity by reducing some bear conflicts.

Implications for Human- Bear Conflict Management: Reimbursement funds have been successful at mitigating the impacts of human-bear conflicts. Unless compensation programs emphasize measures to reduce damage, the inci- dence of human-bear conflicts would not decrease.

Bear damage to apiary, VDGIF

reimbursements for only the most significant damage may be more af- fordable, where large-scale programs aimed at reimbursing individuals for any damage incurred are costly.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 34 Human Bear Conflict Management

Supplemental Feeding

Supplemental feeding augments the impact of temporary natural Research suggests that black natural food supplies by provid- food shortages. Supplemental bears utilizing high-energy, ing additional food sources to feeding is not widely used by human foods grow faster and bears through cultivated wildlife bear managers; however, some mature earlier than bears that uti- plantings or strategically located individuals feed bears to view or lize only natural foods (Alt 1980, wildlife feeding stations. Supple- photograph. Unfortunately, these Tate and Pelton 1983, Rogers mental feeding may have appli- activities often lead bears to seek 1987, McLean and Pelton 1990). cation for managers seeking to out human food sources (i.e. Improved fertility through earlier restore bear populations or pro- food conditioned) and/or to lose sexual maturation, increased tect threatened populations, as their fear of people (i.e. habitu- litter sizes and fewer skips in the feeding programs may mitigate ated). reproductive cycle appears to

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 35 Human Bear Conflict Management be common for black bears with supplemented diets. However, Regional Example estimates of survival rates for Virginia Supplemental Feeding bears with supplemented diets are limited. In July 1999, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) adopted a regulation that prohibited the Supplemental feeding presents feeding of wildlife on national forest and department-owned logistical challenges of acquir- lands. In July 2003, another regulation was passed to pro- ing and distributing enough feed hibit all feeding of bears year round statewide. Prior to the to accomplish the management regulation change in 1999, bear hunters annually spent an goal. This may be confounded average of $163/person for supplemental feeding of bears. by bear social hierarchies and The mean amount of food provided by an individual was the ability of dominant bears to 10,437 kg/year, or 63 kg food/person/day (Gray 2001). monopolize the food. Addition- Most feeding occurred in July, August, and September. ally, as bears congregate around Shelled corn, pastries, grease and bread were most com- supplemental feed sites, the monly used items for supplemental feed. Supplemental feed- potential for disease transfer or ing may have provided a substantial amount of food to bears aggressive competition increas- in years of mast shortage, but potentially only about 2% of es. Use of feed sites by other the bears’ diet during good or excellent mast years. wildlife may generate unintend- ed population effects or disease concerns. In Michigan, supplemental feeding is believed to be Implications for Population Implications for Human- one of the main reasons for the Management: Bear Conflict Management: occurrence and maintenance of Supplemental feeding is Bears that exploit human-re- tuberculosis in several wildlife intended to maintain bear lated food resources are re- species, including black bears. numbers and overall health. sponsible for most human-bear However, the impact of supple- conflicts. Supplemental feed- The economic costs and benefits mental feeding on black bear ing by the public has increased of supplemental feeding are populations is unknown, but is human-bear conflicts in areas not well defined or understood, likely to increase population of high human use. The ef- though wide-scale programs size and spread disease. fects of supplemental feeding would likely be cost prohibitive. in areas of minimal human use Costs are associated with acquir- are unknown. ing and distributing the supplemental feed, mitigating human- bear conflicts that arise from the program and any negative impacts the program would have on other wildlife populations (e.g., disease concerns or habitat destruction).

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 36 Conclusions Conclusions Management of black bear popu- the importance of public edu- ment programs only result in lations and mitigation of human- cation and changes in human short-term solutions to resolving bear conflicts involve integration behavior for decreasing negative conflicts between people and of many management options, interactions between people and bears. Successful bear manage- and no single option is best for bears cannot be overemphasized. ment programs must incorporate every circumstance. However, Many tools used in bear manage- bear population control measures with comprehensive education and attractant management programs to reduce human-bear conflicts. Selection of the appropriate population management options must be consistent with the cultural carrying capacity of the management unit, recreational interests, available habitat and societal concerns for bear related impacts. For human-bear conflicts, appropriate management options are determined by public concerns, extent of damage, type of problem or damage, black bear biology, public safety, animal welfare and available control methods.

PGC photo

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 37 Literature Cited Literature Cited

Alt, G. L. 1980. Rate of growth and size of Pennsylvania black bears. Pennsylvania Game News 51(12):7– 17. Alt, G. L., G. J. Matula, Jr., F. W. Alt, and J. S. Lindzey. 1977. Movements of translocated nuisance black bears of northeastern Pennsylvania. Transactions of the Northeastern Fish and Wildlife Conference 34:119–126. Arthur, L. M. 1981. Measuring public attitudes toward resource issues: coyote control. United States De- partment of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1657, Washington, D.C., USA. Beck, T. D. I., D. S. Moody, D. B. Koch, J. J. Beechman, G. R. Olson, and T. Burton. 1994. Sociological and ethical considerations of black bear hunting. Proceedings of the Western Workshop on Black Bear Research and Management 5:119–131. Beckmann, J. P., C. W. Lackey, and J. Berger. 2004. Evaluation of deterrent techniques and dogs to alter behavior of “nuisance” black bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1141-1146. Beckmann, J. P., L. Karasin, C. Costello, S. Matthews, and Z. Smith. 2008. Coexisting with Black Bears: Perspectives from Four Case Studies Across North America. WCS Working Paper No. 33. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society. Brody, A. J. and M. R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:5–10. CA FED, California Final Environmental Document, Section 265, 365, 367, 367.5, Title 14, California Code of Regulations Regarding Bear Hunting. 2000. CA Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA. Carr, P. C. and M. R. Pelton. 1984. Proximity of Adult Female Black Bears to Limited Access Roads. Pro- ceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 38:70-77. Clevenger, A. P. and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14:47-56. Cockrell, S. 1999. Crusader activists and the 1996 Colorado anti-trapping campaign. Wildlife Society Bul- letin 27:65–74. Comly, L. M. 1993. Survival, reproduction, and movements of translocated nuisance black bears in Virgin- ia. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. Creel, E. 2007. Effectiveness of deterrents on black bears (Ursus americanus) to anthropogenic attractants in urban-wildland interfaces. Thesis. Humboldt State University. Arcata, California, USA. Donaldson, B. M. 2005. The use of highway underpasses by large mammals in Virginia and factors influencing their effectiveness. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Va., VTRC06- R2.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 38 Literature Cited

Duda, M. D., S. J. Bissell and K. C. Young. 1998. Wildlife and the American Mind: Public Opinion on and Attitudes toward Fish and Wildlife Management. 1998. Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Res- toration Grant Agreement 14-48-0009-96-1230. Responsive Management. Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA. Engel, J. W. 1963. An analysis of the deer-bear damage stamp funds in Virginia. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 17:100–107. Fagerstone, K. A., M. A. Coffey, P. D. Curtis, R. A. Dolbeer, G. J. Killian, L. A. Miller, and L. M. Wilmont. 2002. Wildlife Fertility Control. Wildlife Society Technical Review 02-2. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Fies, M. L., D. D. Martin, and G. T. Blank, Jr. 1987. Movements and rates of return of translocated black bears in Virginia. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:369–372. Follmann, E. H. 1989. The importance of advance planning to minimize bear-people conflicts during large scale industrial and transportation developments in the North. Pages 105-110 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on management strategies. Northwest Territories Department of Natural Resources, Yellowknife, Canada. Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling,, J. Bissonette, A. Clevenger, C. Cutshall, V. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. Gold- man, K. Heanue, J. Jones, F. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Foster, M. L., and S. R. Humphrey. 1995. Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:95–100. Fraker, M. A., P. D. Curtis, and M. Mansour. 2006. An analysis of the feasibility of using fertility control to manage New Jersey black bear populations. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science, Research and Technology. Trenton, New Jersey, USA. Garrott, R. A. 1991. Feral horse fertility control: potential and limitations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:52– 58. Garrott, R. A. 1995. Effective management of free-ranging ungulate populations using contraception. Wild- life Society Bulletin 23:445–452. Garshelis, D.L. 2002. Misconceptions, ironies, and uncertainties regarding trends in bear populations. Ur- sus 13:321-334. Geist, V., S. P. Mahoney, and J. F. Organ. 2001. Why hunting has defined the North American model of wildlife conservation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer- ence 66: 175-185. Godfrey, C. L. 1996. Reproductive biology and denning ecology of Virginia’s exploited black bear population. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. Gore, M. L. and B. A. Knuth. 2006. Attitude and behavior change associated with the New York Neigh- BEARhood Watch Program. HDRU Publ. 06-14. Dept. of Nat. Resources, N.Y.S. Coll. of Ag. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York, USA. Gray, R. 2001. Impacts of feeding on black bear nutrition, reproduction, and survival in Virginia. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 39 Literature Cited

Green, J. S. and R. A. Woodruff. 1989. Livestock-guarding dogs reduce depredation by bears. Pages 49-54 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on management strategies. Northwest Territories Department of Natural Resources, Yellowknife, Canada. Higgins, J. C. 1997. Survival, home range use and spatial relationships of Virginia’s exploited black bear population. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. Herrero, S., and A. Higgins. 1998. Field use of capsaicin spray as a bear deterrent. Ursus 10: 533-537. Horton, R. R., and S. R. Craven. 1997. Perceptions of shooting-permit use for deer damage abatement in Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:330 – 336. Hygnstrom S. E. 1994. Black bears. Pages C-5 – C-15 in S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, editors. Prevention and control of wildlife damage. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebras- ka, USA. Hygnstrom, S. E. and T. M. Hauge. 1989. A review of problem black bear management in Wisconsin. Pages 163-168 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on management strategies. Northwest Territories Department of Natural Resources, Yellowknife, Canada. Jorgensen, C. J., R. H. Conley, R. J. Hamilton, and O. T. Sanders. 1978. Management of black bear depredation problems. Proceedings of the Eastern Workshop on Black Bear Research and Management 4:297–319. Keay, J. A. and M. G. Webb. 1989. Effectiveness of human-bear management at protecting visitors and property in Yosemite National Park. Pages 145-154 in M. Bromley, editor. Bear-people conflicts: proceedings of a symposium on management strategies. Northwest Territories Department of Natural Resources, Yellowknife, Canada. Kellert, S. R. 1994. Public attitudes toward bears and their conservation. International Conference on Bear Research and Management. 9:43–50. Kocka, D. M., K. Echols, D. D. Martin, and D. E. Steffen. 2001. The use of aversive conditioning techniques on black bears in the U.S. International Conference of Bear Research and Management. 13 (poster abstract). Land, D. and M. Lotz. 1996. Wildlife Crossing Designs and Use by Florida Panthers and Other Wildlife in Southwest Florida. In Trends in Addressing Wildlife Mortality: Proceedings of the Transportation Re- lated Wildlife Mortality Seminar, G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry, eds. FL-ER-58-96. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. Leigh, J. and M. J. Chamberlain. 2008. Effects of aversive conditioning on behavior of nuisance Louisiana black bears. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2:175-182. Loker, C. A. and D. J. Decker. 1995. Colorado black bear hunting referendum: what was behind the vote? Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:370–376. Macdonald, L. A. and S. Smith. 1999. Bridge Replacements: An Opportunity to Improve Habitat Connectiv- ity. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, and D. Zeigler, eds. FL-ER-73-99. Florida Department of Transportation, Tal- lahassee, Florida, USA. Massopust, J. L. and R. K. Anderson. 1984. Homing tendencies of translocated nuisance black bears in northern Wisconsin. Proceedings of the Eastern Workshop on Black Bear Research and Management 7:66–73.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 40 Literature Cited

McArthur, K. L. 1981. Factors contributing to effectiveness of black bear transplants. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:102–110. McCullough, D. R. 1982. Behavior, bears, and humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:27–33. McIvor, D. E., and M. R. Conover. 1994. Perceptions of farmers and non-farmers towards management of problem wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:212–221. McLaughlin, C. R., C. J. Baker, A. Sallade and J. Tamblyn. 1981. Characteristics and movements of translocated nuisance black bears in north-central Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game Commission Report, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. McLean, P. K. and M. R. Pelton. 1990. Some demographic comparisons of wild and panhandler bears in the Smoky Mountains. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:105–112. McMullin, S. L. and J. A. Parkhurst. 2008. Summary of the pre-workshop survey on aversive conditioning and human-bear conflict outreach education. Proceedings of the Eastern Black BearWorkshop 19:106-110. Miller, S. D. 1990. Impact of increased bear hunting on survivorship of young bears. Wildlife Society Bul- letin 18:462–467. Muth, R.M., RR. Zwick, M.E. Mather and J. F. Organ. 2002. Passing the torch of wildlife and fisheries management: Comparing the attitudes and values of younger and older conservation professionals. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 67:178–193. Muth, R. M., W. V. Jamison. 2000. On the destiny of deer camps and duck blinds: The rise of the animal rights movement and the future of wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 841 -851. Obbard, M. E. and E. J. Howe. 2008. Demography of black bears in hunted and unhunted areas of the Bo- real Forest of Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management: 72: 869–880. Organ, J. F., T. Decker, J. DiStefano, K. Elowe, and P. Rego. 1996. Trapping and Furbearer Management: Perspectives from the Northeast. Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee. PGC. 2005. Management plan for black bear in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. Rogers, L. L. 1986. Effects of translocation distance on frequency of return by adult black bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:76–80. Rogers, L. L. 1987. Effects of food supply and kinship on social behavior, movements, and population growth of black bears in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 97:1-72. Rudis, V. A. and J. B. Tansey. 1995. Regional assessment of remote forests and black bear habitat from forest resource surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:170–180. Ryan, C. W. 1997. Reproductive biology, survival, and denning ecology of Virginia’s exploited black bear population. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. Sauer, P. R. and S. Free. 1969. Movements of tagged bears in the Adirondacks. New York Fish and Game Journal 16:205–223. Schirokauer, D. W. and H. M. Boyd. 1998. Bear-human conflict management in Denali National Park and Preserve 1982–94. Ursus 10:395–403.

Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee 41 Literature Cited

Shull, S. D., M. R. Vaughan and L. Comly. 1994. Use of nuisance bears for restoration purposes. Proceed- ings of the Eastern Workshop on Black Bear Research and Management 12:107–114. Siemer, W. F. and D. J. Decker. 2003. 2002 New York State black bear management survey: study overview and findings highlights. HDRU Publ. 03-6. Dept. of Nat. Resour., N.Y.S. Coll. Ag. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York, USA. Smith, T. S. 1998. Attraction of brown bears to red pepper spray deterrent: caveats for use. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:92-94. Stiver, W. H. 1991. Population dynamics and movements of problems black bears in Great Smoky Moun- tains National Park. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. Tate, J. and M. R. Pelton. 1983. Human-bear interactions in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Inter- national Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:312–321. Ternent, M. A. 2008. Effect of lengthening the hunting season in Northeastern Pennsylvania on population size and harvest rates of black bears. Proceedings of the Eastern Black Bear Workshop 19:90-97. USDA WS WI. 2002. Environmental Assessment: Black bear nuisance and damage management in Wis- consin. Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact. U.S. Department ofAgriculture-APHIS- Wildlife Services. Van Manen, F. T., M. F. McCollister, J. M Nicholson, L. M. Thompson, J. L. Kindall, and M. D. Jones. 2012. Short-term impacts of a 4-lane highway on American black bears in Eastern North Carolina. Wildlife Monographs 181:1-35. VDGIF. 2002. Virginia Black Bear Management Plan. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia, USA. Wade, D. A. 1987. Economics of wildlife production and damage control on private lands. Pages 154-163 in D. Decker and G. G. Goff, editors. Valuing wildlife. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Warburton, G. S. and R. C. Maddrey. 1994. Survey of nuisance bear programs in eastern North America. Eastern Workshop on Black Bear Research and Management 12:115–123. Weaver, K. M. 2000. Black bear ecology and the use of prescribed fire to enhance bear habitat. in Sympo- sium proceedings “Fire, People, and the Central Hardwood Landscape”, Eastern Kentucky Univer- sity, Richmond, Kentucky, USA. Williamson, D. F. 2002. In the Black: Status, Management, and Trade of the American black bear (Ursus americanus) in North America. TRAFFIC North America. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.

An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options 42